SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPXRELIABLE SOURCES ADVISED THAT WE HAVE TAKEN PLACE (IN THIS AUGUST IN Menzingen), an extraordinary chapter of the SSPX who treated MAINLY ABOUT Doctrinal Preamble.

In late July we received information about it from a source located in North America, but we refrained from publishing for lack of confirmations. Today we have received from Eastern Europe, new information completely consistent with the former.

Like Fr. Pfluger said, "This train leaves for Rome. All who want to get off will get off". We'll see how many will. It appears that decision is imminent.

Good point. I doubt that many sspxers will get off the train. I think Fr. Pfluger has probably pretty accurately taken the pulse of the sspx faithful. They don't care one way or the other. Give them the Latin Mass, and most of the accompanying ceremonial aspects of "traditional" Catholicism, and they're satisfied.

SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPXRELIABLE SOURCES ADVISED THAT WE HAVE TAKEN PLACE (IN THIS AUGUST IN Menzingen), an extraordinary chapter of the SSPX who treated MAINLY ABOUT Doctrinal Preamble.

In late July we received information about it from a source located in North America, but we refrained from publishing for lack of confirmations. Today we have received from Eastern Europe, new information completely consistent with the former.

[THIS POST IS IN DEVELOPMENT]

The Doctrinal Preamble is the "1989 Profession of Faith" and the "Oath of Fidelity" to Rome. THAT is the NON NEGOTIABLE part of the deal. The Romans need no more. Once they sign it, they are sitting ducks! The last paragraph reads (worth repeating):

I'm sorry, but this is TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. There's nothing here not to sign. Do you guys even know what "religious submission" means? Catholics are absolutely required to give religious submission to all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these documents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics....This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.

Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’. ...Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements....Franzelin holds that the Roman Pontiff can command all Catholics to assent to a given proposition (either directly or by condemning the contradictory statement), for either one of two different reasons. First the Holy Father can intend to define this proposition infallibly as true or as de fide. Again he can will merely to look after the security of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church has been equipped with help from God by reason of which the first sort of teaching gives infallible truth, while the second affords infallible security. Employing the plentitude of its power, the teaching Church operates as the auctoritas infallibilitatis. Working, not to define, but merely to take those steps it deems necessary to safeguard the faith, it is the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis. To this auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis and to the teachings it sets forth, the faithful owe the obedience of respectful silence and of an internal mental assent according to which the proposition thus presented is accepted, not as infallibly true, but as safe, as guaranteed by that authority which is divinely commissioned to care for the Christian faith....Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.[my note: contradiction of previous Magisterium would clearly meet this condition]

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

Religious submission means a grave respect and presumption of truth in receiving any authentic teaching of the Holy Father to the Universal Church (here the context is Encyclicals but the docs of V2 clearly also fall into this category). This does not mean an absolute guarantee of truth when proportionately grave reasons arise that would warrant rejecting a teaching (and the contradiction of previous Magisterium would clearly suffice).

I'm sorry, but this is TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. There's nothing here not to sign. Do you guys even know what "religious submission" means? Catholics are absolutely required to give religious submission to all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

Please read the critique closely that was sent by Fr. Waters to Archbishop Di Noia at the CDF.

The submission on the “mind and will” or as Lumen Gentium calls it, submission of the “soul” as defined by the Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF is of a different order, an entirely different kind from which theologians formerly understood the term including Fr. Fenton. It is no longer what theologians once called a “prudent” or “conditional” submission but an unconditional submission of the soul which can only be given to God alone.

Fr. Waters’ last letter to Cardinal Muller also addressed the difference between the religious submission of Pius XII in Humani Generis and that demanded in the 1989 Profession of Faith that was improperly equated by Archbishop Pozzo.

There is a reason that the 1989 Profession of Faith with its non-dogmatic third paragraph is the only absolutely unconditional non-negotiable demand for regularizing the SSPX. It is the means to impose the new religion with its canonical penalities.

The old Angelqueen debate on this question is also worth reading and is posted on Ss. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission web page. The link is provided in the abbreviated summary sent to the CDF:

In November 2013 Bishop de Gallareta told some of us in India that the SSPX would never sign a deal with the Conciliar Church as long as Vatican II was in place. I believe that he said something quite similar in Britain recently. Would he say such had he not been told this by Bp Fellay himself? Maybe Bishop de Mallerais has also been given a similar assurance.

But the writing on the wall for some years now is that Bp Fellay and his team want a deal. And it seems that such is not far away.

+Fellay has been dishonest even with the religious orders (Dominicans of Avrille, Braz. Benedictines and the German Carmelites. He was caught on many lies). So, he has totally discredited himself. I think +de Galarreta would have to go with +Fellay to Rome because he is the one that handled the talks with the Romans. My assumption is that if the two assistants are eager to go to Rome, so is +dG. If he has objections to it, he should have spoken after Fr. Pfluger made it clear the train to Rome is leaving. As far as +TM, my impression is that they are not leveling with him but is clear from his last talk that he is not going to Rome. He calls those who advise going to Rome "bad friends" and warns about them.

+TM may be the reason why the SSPX is coming to Rome through the back door (Argentina), as someone who has something to hide but from his last interview, he has gone the whole hog. I was delighted to hear Fr. Cyprian's June sermon. After listening to it, it is clear to me that he will not go to Rome. His speaking so emphatically at this time when +Fellay is showing his reform of the reform colors is no coincidence and very encouraging. MO.

Logged

The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.(St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

I'm sorry, but this is TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. There's nothing here not to sign. Do you guys even know what "religious submission" means? Catholics are absolutely required to give religious submission to all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

Please read the critique closely that was sent by Fr. Waters to Archbishop Di Noia at the CDF.

The submission on the “mind and will” or as Lumen Gentium calls it, submission of the “soul” as defined by the Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF is of a different order, an entirely different kind from which theologians formerly understood the term including Fr. Fenton. It is no longer what theologians once called a “prudent” or “conditional” submission but an unconditional submission of the soul which can only be given to God alone.

I DID read the response from Father Waters. Father Waters is off base.

Referring to the submission being "internal" and of the "mind and will" simply distinguishes this type of submission from mere external lip service.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded.

This is nothing other than Traditional Catholic teaching.

In the discussions with Bishop Fellay, Rome acknowledges that the SSPX has a right to RESPECTFULLY question the teachings of Vatican II while maintaining the "religious submission".

I'm sorry, but this is TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. There's nothing here not to sign. Do you guys even know what "religious submission" means? Catholics are absolutely required to give religious submission to all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?

Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."

No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.

CathInfo.com - A message board with Catholic news and information for traditional Catholics living in the modern world.Have questions about our discussion forum? E-mail us: news at cathinfo.com

The posts on CathInfo are the words and opinions of the individual members who posted them, and do not reflect the views of CathInfo or its owner. CathInfo is not liable for the postings of any of its members.

CathInfo is the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance, which it officially supports.
Traditional Catholics worldwide have made us the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world.

Please pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, a noble prelate and hand-picked successor of Archbishop Lefebvre whose Catholic wisdom and zeal for the truth have inspired many Traditional Catholics.
On October 23, 2012, the good Bishop was cast out of the SSPX, where he had labored tirelessly for 36 years.
His continued membership in the neo-SSPX would have made a premature union with Rome more difficult.
He is committed to defending Catholic Tradition in all its purity in the SSPX Resistance, as the true successor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, continuing the fight the SSPX once fought."I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile." - Pope Gregory VII